The Israelis have been frequently criticized for their policy of targeted killings. That phrase indicates the use of military hardware to kill specific individuals, including especially leaders of a hostile political organization. We are in no position to make such criticisms.
The United States officially and legally eschews assassination as a tool of foreign policy. We also assassinate people we consider terrorist, just as the Israelis do. Our unmanned predators are largely devoted to this task. They allow us to kill from the air, without risk to American personnel.
This contradiction makes for some clownish denials on our part. We and our NATO allies have been at pains to insist that we are not personally targeting Muammar Gaddafi in our Libyan operations.
NATO denied targeting members of Muammar Gaddafi's family on Sunday after a Libyan government spokesman said the leader had survived a NATO air strike in Tripoli that killed his youngest son and three grandchildren.
The Western alliance, which is conducting air strikes to protect civilians during an anti-Gaddafi rebellion, confirmed one of its targets included a command centre in the Tripoli neighborhood late on Saturday in which the Libyan spokesman said Gaddafi and his family were targeted.
Ok. This is the second time we have hit a building which we thought MG might be inside. This comes close to a gross verbal inexactitude, otherwise known as a big, fat, lie. Does Muammar really keep his grandkids in "command centers"? No, we weren't targeting his grandkids. We were targeting his butt.
When Seal Team 6 stormed Hotel bin Laden they were after the old cutthroat dead or alive, except for the alive part. It was a "kill mission." The fact that the Administration can't quite bring itself to say that explains their bizarre inability to get their story straight. Osama had a gun and used his wife as a shield. No, he hadn't and he didn't. There was a prolonged firefight? Well, a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee sort of explains:
"They came in at night. It was dark. There were people moving around. They were fired at by, I think more than one person," Smith said. "There were weapons in the area. It was a fast-moving situation in which they felt threatened and they responded accordingly."
Citing U.S. officials, NBC reported that four of the five people shot to death in the operation that killed bin Laden, including the al Qaeda leader, were unarmed and never fired a shot --an account that differs from the administration's original assertions the Navy SEALS engaged in a prolonged firefight.
I am no expert, but I don't see how dark, people moving around, and weapons in the area add up to a firefight. In fact, I suspect, the SEALS killed all the men they encountered because it was a man they were gunning for. Killing bin Laden was the mission they were there to accomplish. Why can't we just say that?
Getting caught up in such lies is a consequence of not coming to terms with what you are doing. The President's anti-terrorism policy is Bush's anti-terrorism policy. He has ended up doing almost exactly what Bush did and what Bush would have done in his shoes. This is because the demands of his office and the circumstances in which he finds himself allow nothing else.
Unfortunately for his self-awareness, these realities are at odds with his understandable desire to distance himself from his predecessor and with his natural inclinations as a left-leaning Democrat. Fortunately for American interests, this didn't hamper the operation.
Still, it would be better for everyone to avoid confusion. The moral of this story should be simple. If you come after us, we will come after you, without hesitation and without mercy. Don't imagine that not having a weapon or not raising it will protect you if you are standing next to one of our mortal enemies. If your roomy is a terrorist you will die like a terrorist. The President doesn't have to say it like I said it. He does need to make sure everyone understands it, including him.
Nothing wrong with the way you said it, some people just can't handle the truth.
Posted by: William | Thursday, May 05, 2011 at 06:40 AM
Bush said it. Obama did it. Go figure.
Posted by: Billl Fleming | Thursday, May 05, 2011 at 06:58 AM
Bill; Keep in mind that the CIA people who gleaned the information that allowed Obama to kill Bin Laden are under criminal investigation by the Holder justice department, awaiting a political show trial, to shore up Obama's standing with the hard left. George Bush went after the terrorists, and until his poll numbers tanked, Obama was trying to coddle them.
Posted by: George Mason | Thursday, May 05, 2011 at 07:51 AM
George. Facts are stubborn things. So let me reassert. Bush talked about it. Obama did it. Period.
The phrase 'all hat, no cattle' comes to mind when reading spin to the contrary.
Posted by: Billl Fleming | Thursday, May 05, 2011 at 08:36 AM
Puts Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, Squeaky Fromme, and John Hincklye in a whole new light: Freedom Fighters, right?
Posted by: larry kurtz | Thursday, May 05, 2011 at 09:21 AM
"We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al-Qaida. That has to be our biggest national security priority," so said Obama in an October, 2008 debate with John McCain. I believe it was during the same exchange that he said a kill mission would be launched without help or permission from the country where Obama might be hiding. Any of that scenario sound familiar?
Obama has never been "squirmish" about exerting American power, your speculation as to how he thinks or what motivates him not withstanding. As Bill says, "He did it.", amateur psychoanalysis and idle speculation on the part of Right wing critics not withstanding.
Posted by: A.I. | Thursday, May 05, 2011 at 10:00 AM
Bill,
"Bush talked about it. Obama did it. Period."
This is such a B.S. arguement! Obama couldn't have done squat without the intelligence and military infrastructure already set up for him when he came to office. You pronounce it as if just because Obama did his job and saw thru actions that were already in motion when he came to office, that he his now superior?
Get a Life!
U.S. Death in Afghanistan: (Aug 2010)
Bush = 575 over 114 months
Obama = 910 over 26 months
Posted by: Jimi | Thursday, May 05, 2011 at 11:46 AM
Bill, Larry, A.I.; When is Obama/Holder going drop the jihad against the CIA for gathering the information that allowed Obama to find his cow. Obama is still working both sides of the street which is where the moral confusion comes from.
Posted by: George Mason | Thursday, May 05, 2011 at 12:08 PM
Jimi, again, just the facts. I have a life. Obama has a life. Bin Laden doesn't. Barack Obama found him and ordered the Seals to take him out. Bush said he was going to do it. Obama did it. End of story.
Posted by: Billl Fleming | Thursday, May 05, 2011 at 02:37 PM
Bill,
"Barack Obama found him"
O.K......how did he find him? He did it all by himself didn't he!
Pathetic!
Posted by: Jimi | Thursday, May 05, 2011 at 03:46 PM
I think Bill is right on. Just like that loser FDR had nothing to do with winning WWII. After all, he couldn't get the Germans or Japanese to surrender. It happened when Truman was president so FDR had nothing to do with it. And don't forget that the Great Depression was all FDRs fault. After all, he was president through most of it, so obviously the Depression had NOTHING to do with anything that had happened before before Roosevelt's presidency. And Andrew Johnson won the Civil War. Stand Watie didn't surrender until June of 1865, two months after Lincoln died. See, Lincoln didn't end the war, Johnson did. Moses died before the Israelites actually entered Canaan, so he had absolutely nothing to do with that event. And remember how Donald Driver had NOTHING to do with the Packers winning the Super Bowl last year. Sure, he had a good season and all, but he got hurt early in the Super Bowl so he had NOTHING to do with them winning because nothing that happened before the game was the least bit relevant to their championship. Bill's logic follows. Because Bush was not president when Bin Laden died, it goes to figure that he contributed absolutely nothing to the events of the past week. All the variables that led to Bin Laden's capture were non-existent in January of 2009. Obama did it all. But the economy is totally Obama's fault, because like with the killing of Bin Laden NOTHING Bush did matters. Right, Bill? Like Athena from Zeus's head, the world did indeed emerge fully formed on January 20, 2009.
Posted by: Jon S. | Thursday, May 05, 2011 at 04:40 PM
The topic is talk vs action. GWB talked. Obama acted.
Posted by: Bill Fleming | Thursday, May 05, 2011 at 07:37 PM
I think it's pretty funny that KB just can't quite get over the fact that Obama's policies are nowhere near Bush's policies when it comes to terrorism. Let's remember that Bush started out his Presidency ignoring failed state and non-state terrorism. (Osama was a non-state terrorist using a failed state as a staging area.) Bush really never did get it, because he left the situation in Afghanistan to deteriorate, while he went off on an unnecessary war in Iraq. Obama extracted us from Iraq (as much as possible) and refocused on Afghanistan and the border area of Pakistan.
Posted by: Donald Pay | Thursday, May 05, 2011 at 07:55 PM
Obama has always said that Afganistan is the important war, Iraq was a distraction. Just look at the changes he made by looking at this article from the Wall Street Journal:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704810504576305432112808702.html
Posted by: Mark Anderson | Thursday, May 05, 2011 at 09:19 PM
A.I.: Your reading glasses may need adjustment. I did not argue that Obama has been ""squirmish" about exerting American power". I argued to the contrary that his policies have been largely the same as Bush, a fact so obvious that only Donald could miss it. I argued that Obama specifically and NATO in general talk one way and act another.
My analysis of his motives had nothing to do with psychoanalysis. It was political analysis, and I might add, common sense. Comparing Bush and Obama, which of the two is likely to be more uncomfortable with the idea of targeted killings? I say Obama. This is no personal idiosyncrasy of his; it is one of those wide spread divisions in political culture that drive politics in modern democracies. Now: which of the two actually practiced targeted killings as Commander in Chief? Both. That means that Obama has more of a problem than Bush one this one point.
The Obama Administration has had terrible trouble getting its story straight. Was there a firefight or not? Was it a simple "kill mission" or would Obama have been taken alive if only he had acted differently when the SEALS got there?
Maybe this was simple incompetence. I wouldn't rule that out. I think, however, it reflects a conflict between principles that Obama genuinely wants to hold to and realities. I think my view of Obama is more charitable than yours.
In Libya the same thing happens and there we are simply lying about what we are up to. My analysis explains this behavior.
Posted by: Ken Blanchard | Thursday, May 05, 2011 at 09:53 PM
Bill: I think Jon puts it pretty well. I would only add that anyone who denied Obama credit for nailing bin Laden on the grounds that most of the years of careful pursuit took place while Bush was President would be saying something very stupid. You can turn that around.
Posted by: Ken Blanchard | Thursday, May 05, 2011 at 09:57 PM
Bill,
Are you under the impression the the factors which led to the death of Bin Laden were wholly absent as of January 20, 2009? For example, when did we learn about the Al Qaeda courier that proved so important to finding the compound? When did the interrogations of KSM take place? The Obama administration has stated that they gained useful information from those held at Guantanamo? When was the prison created? Who supported its continuation and who favored its closure? Read the posts on this site. No one is arguing the significant credit goes to Obama and his team. One begins to think you are having a joke with the absurd claim the all relevant actions (not talk) took place AFTER January 2009. As I say, it is like saying that because the Berlin Wall fell under the watch of George HW Bush, the containment policy announced by Harry Truman forty years earlier was entirely irrelevant.
Posted by: Jon S. | Friday, May 06, 2011 at 07:59 AM
My only point, KB, is that is doesn't matter what language you use. Dead is dead.
Posted by: Billl Fleming | Friday, May 06, 2011 at 08:10 AM
As for Jon's point, if a butterfly flaps it's wings in Tahiti, it rains in Colorado. So?
Posted by: Billl Fleming | Friday, May 06, 2011 at 08:13 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o&feature=youtube_gdata_player
One last thought on the rhetoric of George Bush. You might want to revisit your hypothesis, professor.
Posted by: Billl Fleming | Friday, May 06, 2011 at 08:23 AM
there are those of us who found the GWB rhetoric and strategy as demonstrated above unsatisfactory, Barack Obama among them.
Posted by: Billl Fleming | Friday, May 06, 2011 at 08:29 AM
Bill,
On the other hand, Bush apparently asked about Bin Laden on a regular basis during his daily intelligence briefing. Do you think it is possible that saying the war on terrorism is bigger than Bin Laden might have been an example of downplaying expectations? Because his actions in private suggest that he was giving some attention to the question. Which do you think better demonstrates his policy goals regarding Bin Laden, this one public statement, or his actions? Apparently you think actions are more important than talk. So which is it now? Is Bush "all hat and no cattle" which I take to mean "all talk and no action," or is your current position after finding one YouTube clip that Bush was no talk OR action? Again, do you think when Mark Bowden or someone like him publishes the book "Getting Bin Laden" that the story of the apparatus that ultimately got Bin Landen will start on January 20, 2009?
Posted by: Jon S. | Friday, May 06, 2011 at 09:46 AM
This blogger confesses to cases that support the .308 Solution (North Korea, Myanmar, etc), but only in concert with the United Nations Security Council. The precedents in US history abound. Google the Dahlgren Affair. So, redstaters, how many times IS the CIA allowed to get it wrong before it gets one right?
Posted by: larry kurtz | Friday, May 06, 2011 at 11:04 AM
Bill,
"GWB talked. Obama acted."
This is factually incorrect, quit saying it! Bush's policies led to the killing of Osama. So it was both Bush and Obama actions. Don't be a typical leftist liar. Use some commonsense, and reasoning in your comments.
Posted by: Jimi | Friday, May 06, 2011 at 12:41 PM
Donald,
"Obama's policies are nowhere near Bush's policies when it comes to terrorism"
Obama has used the Bush policiy's and doubled down on them. Don't be a typical leftist liar, use some commonsense and reasoning in your comments.
Posted by: Jimi | Friday, May 06, 2011 at 12:42 PM
Jimi, calm down.
Posted by: Bill Fleming | Friday, May 06, 2011 at 02:32 PM
Jon, his actions included starting a war with a country who wasn't threatening us and diverting our attention and resources away from the prime objective. Wrong talk wrong action. He reached a fork in the road and went down the wrong path. I was 100% behind him prior to that. After that it was just a long series of missteps, excuse making, and chest thumping. Very disappointing.
Posted by: Bill Fleming | Friday, May 06, 2011 at 02:37 PM
As to a country that "wasn't threatening us", there is a great interview of Condoleeza Rice by Larry O'Donnell on MSNBC. Guess who wins? I am not good at copying links, but you can also find it on American Spectator.
Posted by: Mike | Friday, May 06, 2011 at 08:11 PM
I saw it Mike. Condi made a fool of herself.
Posted by: Billl Fleming | Saturday, May 07, 2011 at 04:43 AM
...so did O'Donnell, by the way. Both of them were talking past each other, neither addressing the present situation, just rehashing the past.
Posted by: Billl Fleming | Saturday, May 07, 2011 at 06:31 AM
Bill: starting a war with a country that was not threatening us. You mean like Libya.
Posted by: KB | Saturday, May 07, 2011 at 10:06 AM
KB, there is no comparison with Libya. Surely you are more astute than that. Had we done in Iraq what was done in Libya, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives would have been saved. You strike BEFORE the genocide, not after. And you do it by invitation and in cooperation with other nations and the UN.
Posted by: Billl Fleming | Saturday, May 07, 2011 at 11:22 AM
Bill: try thinking. You won't like it, but it would be good for you. Who "invited" us into Libya? We HAD cooperation with other nations in Iraq. The Libyan "genocide" was preemption based on pure speculation. Not that there's anything wrong with that. We were in fact doing in Iraq exactly what we are now doing in Libya: using air power to enforce de facto partition on a nation. We did it for twelve years. Is that you have in mind in Libya?
In any case, Libya was not, in fact, threatening us, which you thought was meaningful in the case of Iraq.
Posted by: Ken Blanchard | Saturday, May 07, 2011 at 02:44 PM
ha ha. Back at you professor
Posted by: Billl Fleming | Sunday, May 08, 2011 at 09:58 AM
...try reading... You won't like it, but it will be good for you.
Posted by: Billl Fleming | Sunday, May 08, 2011 at 10:00 AM
Very funny Bill, but I think I heard that somewhere before.
Posted by: Ken Blanchard | Monday, May 09, 2011 at 12:55 AM
But Suze, the universal daefult policies were a good way for credit card companies to protect their assets. They allowed the credit card companies to share information and know who was being a bad debtor so they could get as much money as possible from someone who was robbing Peter to pay Paul', and realistically, those people have a 95% chance of going bankrupt anyway, so the credit card companies were just getting their money, and it's not just their money. It's their share holders' money.
Posted by: Michelle | Monday, June 25, 2012 at 08:41 AM